Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 299 posts

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#221

Post by meatsauce »

Strom wrote: post #109
frereubu wrote: post #94

I'd be (genuinely) interested in an answer to the questions: (a) would people here, as individuals, feel comfortable working for a company owned by someone like Mohammed bin Salman? and (b) If not, what is the difference between that and a company changing its working practices to continue making profits in that country? My sense is that the corporate decisions are easier because they're depersonalised, but I don't s…

Mohammed bin Salman is from Saudi Arabia, this article is about the United Arab Emirates, or well the Amazon-related part anyway. Also, while we're on the topic of moral dilemmas, I would like to add some spice by pointing out that buying almost anything from the supermarket funds someone like Mohammed bin Salman, because their oil was used in the production and transportation of the product or its components.

It doesn't have to be that way. The USA has more than enough energy reserves, however international lobbying and bribery ensures foreign influence.

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#223

Post by meatsauce »

high_5 wrote: post #103
erellsworth wrote: post #51

There's no such thing as a woke corporation. Corporate wokeness is an illusion created by PR departments to maximize market share.

So you're implying LGBT are fundamentalist that corporations bowed to too.

A mob of LGBT allies will make your life a living hell if you don't pledge total fealty, so yes, they are fundamentalists and zealots of their own little religion.

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#224

Post by ziddoap »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #218
ziddoap wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does any of this have to do with how the word 'woke' was used? The word 'woke' has one applicable dictionary definition (and not thousands of years of teachings, etc.) which doesn't align with how I see it used. I'm not asking for a theology lesson, just how OP intended their usage of 'woke' to be interpreted by the reader. This isn't some 'gotcha' question or start of a debate. I literally am just not understan…

(I engaged in pointless argument here. The quotes below are sufficient.)

>I thought you were playing dumb. Maybe you are? Maybe not?

What part of 'genuine question' is confusing? Isn't there some rule here about reading comments in the best light, not the worst?

>You chose a self-presented definition of wokeism that makes it sound unobjectionable.

No, I chose the definition supplied by Oxford Language when searching for 'definition of woke'.

>Understanding your post not to be a good-faith question but an argument in favor of wokeism

Seems rather uncharitable.

Can you tell me how I, in the future, can ask for a colloquial definition (which doesn't match dictionary definitions) so that it doesn't confuse people into thinking I'm somehow a proponent of said word/phrase/etc? Apparently 'genuine question' isn't interpreted as genuine.

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#225

Post by trasz »

mardifoufs wrote: post #156
trasz wrote: post #8

Soon in southern US.

This weird obsession some have to make everything about the usa is just ridiculous especially in this case. If you think there is any similarity between the UAE/KSA and even the most regressive US states in how they treat LGBT rights, you should really really take a step back and reconsider. Yes, it's funny to call those states the equivalent "American talibans" or whatever, but it doesn't make it true. It's so weird…

You do realise that even UAE and Afghanistan both have more humane abortion laws than some of the southern states, don't you?

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#226

Post by mrguyorama »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #176
colpabar wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Employees have more utility if they get an abortion This is exactly what people find gross about it. This is like defending walmart for avoiding hiring full time employees so they don't have to provide health care because you think healthcare should be provided by the gov.

I am not defending Walmart. But I will not attack Walmart for playing by the rules. > This is exactly what people find gross about it. Calculating that an employee out on parental leave will cost you more (and hence cause you to be less competitive in the marketplace) than an employee that is working is not gross, it is simply math.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game" is horseshit.

If the action is inhuman, I will hate you for it. Maybe those excuses help you sleep at night but if we want to pretend we aren't just especially smart monkeys then we should act like it

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#227

Post by mrguyorama »

meatsauce wrote: post #219
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> remember not to blame them for "banning western companies" in the future American companies are banned from paying foreign bribes. They’re not given a free pass with suporting genocide or terrorism, regardless of where it happens, even if that’s the law or custom somewhere else. If we place domestic profits over sex trafficking or death penalties for gay people, so long as it’s there not here, then fine, let’s live…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#228

Post by sweetheart »

maratc wrote: post #188
Spivak wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the standard you're going to hold the parent to would include "assume as a premise that it's totally fine that a country decides to commit genocide and there's no possible justification for why that's bad outside cultural norms" then what's even the point? Do you want an economic argument or something? I mean the argument is “homosexuality and being trans are real observable phenomena in the human species across h…

People who bring the "genocide" argument to the discussion are like people who bring pepper spray to a party: they are not interested in a discussion (the others are not interested in a party). Skipping that, Amazon is not taking part in any genocide - they agreed to "restrict LGBT search results" in accordance with the local laws (however backward these may seem to you — and me). In the US, Amazon is not selling Mei…

There are huge differences between Amazon not selling porn due to local laws and Amazon restricting LGBTQ searches due to local laws. Just because there is precedent doesn’t suddenly mean it’s a good thing to do.

People in this thread think I’m surprised by this news, or they try to explain why we should expect this from Amazon. I don’t care about any of that. At the end of the day, someone or some people made the call to continue making a buck by empowering a homophobic and dangerous group. That’s fucked up.

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#229

Post by tcmart14 »

digitalsushi wrote: post #63
baisq wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, let's see that superiority when the US supremacy breaks down. Because the only way that the Western culture has prevailed this century is through bloodshed.

There must be some western culture that has been successful because it is what humans naturally gravitate towards.

The issue is, you can go back to any form of governance and social hierarchy throughout history and find groups of people defending it as what humans "naturally want." People have done this with feudalism and whatever came before.

Re: Amazon bows to UAE pressure to restrict LGBT search results

#230

Post by beej71 »

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #54

Do people agree that corporations should respect the customs and values of the local people when operating their business there? If yes, then Amazon is not "bowing", and it is The Guardian who is playing word games here. If not, then it would seem to imply that we are OK with western powers using their capital (instead of gunboats) to impose their ideology on other cultures in the world. Now, one may argue that the c…

Amazon doesn't respect any customs or values of any culture. They've done the calculus here that they will make more money by doing this than by not doing it.
Post reply on HN